On 10-Jun-99 Stephen J Baker wrote:
>> > 2. There is the public interface which connects OpenGL/Mesa to the
>> > OS / window system. This interface, by definition, is unique to
>> > each system. These are the GLX, WGL, OS/Mesa, SVGA, Glide, etc
>> > interfaces.
>> Yes. That's what I want to unify so that you can write an application
>> once and run it everywhere, even on future systems, without modification.
>> These APIs are so similar that it shouldn't be difficult to unify them.
>> We would have to discard the old APIs, however.
> I strongly object to this idea. Mesa is just another name for OpenGL.
README:
Mesa is a 3-D graphics library with an API which is very similar to that
of OpenGL*. To the extent that Mesa utilizes the OpenGL command syntax
or state machine, it is being used with authorization from Silicon Graphics,
Inc. However, the author makes no claim that Mesa is in any way a
compatible replacement for OpenGL or associated with Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Those who want a licensed implementation of OpenGL should contact a licensed
vendor.
> It needs to remain compatible with the existing industry standards.
It would definitely not break compatibilty.
>> #include <GL/mesa.h> - the unified Mesa API
>>
>> MesaInit(); - initialize Mesa
>
> ...etc...
>
> This can (and should) be a separate package - very much along the
> lines of GLUT that simply hides the existing lower level GLX, WGL, etc
> behind a portable wrapper.
No, that's _not_ possible as long as such a package can't directly
communicate with the corresponding Mesa driver.
The package would need to know all possible drivers/systems
and how to control them, which would lead to yet another monolithic design.
However, this shouldn't prevent you to create a new independent package
that is able to load drivers (e.g. for mouse support) dynamically,
but setting up simple things such as a double buffer is the task
of the Mesa driver and it's just natural to export this feature
to the application.
> MANY people are interested in a GLUT rewrite, a better GLUT, a different
> GLUT or a far simpler GLUT. Either way, that's a separate project - which
> would benefit ALL OpenGL's, not just Mesa.
What I'm proposing is a very simple app<->driver interface.
I doubt that in near future there will be standardized replacement
that would be accepted by all major OpenGL implementors.
It's not supposed to be the final solution but
it'd be at least a good start and fix some problems of Mesa.
>> It's just an replacement for the old APIs (Xmesa, fxmesa etc.).
> Those are just kludges to get around the limitations of the Voodoo1/2
> chipset.
Certainly not. Most of them are not Voodoo specific.
It's mostly the same interface but each one with a different
function prefix. It's just obvious to unify them.
I don't see why you're objecting to this idea.
I just want to implement support for dynamically loadable
drivers which requires replacing the old "kludges"
with another - in your opinion - "kludge".
Thomas Tanner -----------------------------------------
email: tanner@(ffii.org|gnu.org|ggi-project.org|gmx.de)
web: http://home.pages.de/~tanner
GGI/Picasso: http://picasso.ffii.org
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
